An inhabited institutions perspective views institutions from the bottom up, as “inhabited” by individual and organizational actors who have agency, rather than as static, top-down structures. Criminal justice structures and policies, such as those that govern courts and their sentencing decisions, are dependent on court participants. From this perspective, several conclusions emerge. First, theory and methods in the study of courts and sentencing are out of balance: theories emphasize interpretation, culture, and processes, while empirical inquiries focus largely on statistical studies of aggregates and outcomes. Second, the inhabited institutions perspective blurs the lines between the discretions of specific participants such as prosecutors and judges. Rather than attempt to parse the discretion of individual actors, we should study the interactions that jointly produce discretionary decisions. Third, we should focus on specific organizational mechanisms that produce both uniformity and variation between courts. Finally, variation between courts in sentencing practices should be understood not as a nuisance in top-down imposition of sentencing policies, but as a valuable but underappreciated source of policy feedback and learning.

中文翻译：

---

作为居住机构的刑事法院：判刑中的异同点

从有人居住的机构的角度看，机构是自下而上的，是拥有代理的个人和组织参与者“居住”的机构，而不是静态的自上而下的结构。刑事司法结构和政策，例如管辖法院及其判决的法律和政策，都取决于法院的参与者。从这个角度来看，得出了一些结论。首先，法院和量刑研究中的理论和方法失衡：理论强调解释，文化和过程，而实证研究则主要集中于汇总和结果的统计研究。其次，有人居住的机构的观点模糊了检察官和法官等特定参与者的酌处权之间的界限。与其尝试解析各个参与者的判断力，不如说是 我们应该研究共同产生酌情决定权的相互作用。第三，我们应该集中精力于在法院之间产生统一性和差异性的特定组织机制。最后，法院之间在判决实践上的差异不应被理解为自上而下实施判决政策的麻烦，而应被视为宝贵的，但未被充分重视的政策反馈和学习来源。